text:
Assuming that discussions are not from interest - practical and Buddhas response [meta]
Valued Bu-SE team and members,
Recently Atma again came accross this assuming:

I assume that people in the future (e.g. a year from now), who may read these Q+A pages, will not be interested in comments about each other (comments about users) and will only be interested in the question and the answers.

and thought maybe worthy to possible make more as just assuming out of it.
Where ever a smarter person seeks for an answer and hadto relay on trust, is not just a "most voted" and world currency flow follower, he/she would listen and get involved into discussion to know more about the "suggesters" wisdom.
So also the Buddha told especially lay people, in regard of knowing "who is one on he path" or even at destiny, that one can only find out ones wisdom getting into discussions to lrarn more about the ways of thinking and wisdom of a person.

"It's through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning." ― Paṭisalla Sutta: Seclusion

Of course, discussion even listened or readed does not help those not very attentive and over a longer periode, but impossible even for a patiently and discerning person to find out if cut off from it.
So in not only providing good transpatrence but also to give most possible access, it would be even better and conuctive to encourage people to discuss. If two seems to fight, let them do so if they wish and all what might seems to be unskillful for you must not be unskilful at least. But that aside of the main issue.
Atma sees just one thing that is not so good, and that is generally the layout. Maybe its possible to make the discussion window smaller, not so high and give it a differnt layout so that it would not disturb that much in identifying of what is what.
Otherwise Atma would again encourage to discuss, question, give Sadhu and critic as long and often possible and he might not guess wrong that this chart-rooms are not really much in use and favored at lage.
But after all, just well meant suggestions.

Sadhu for moving, @ChrisW

It would be nice to get to know the level of people's answers here over a long time, but my experience is that very few people stay consistently active for long. For myself, many times I feel I made a good contribution which was mostly ignored (or in other SE sites, attacked) but often I just say puzzling things to try to get people to think in a different way (problematizing) and it is almost never understood, even as a joke. People with good verbal skills seem to be extremely concrete and expect purely logical statements, and life is just not like that. Good luck!

maybe worthy to possible make more as just assuming out of it

I'm sorry that I don't always completely understand your syntax, and my own German is much worse, and so I'm not able to always understand everything you write.
But here, I think you're saying you want to discuss this instead of making assumptions.

Where ever a smarter person seeks for an answer and hadto relay on trust, is not just a "most voted" and world currency flow follower, he/she would listen and get involved into discussion to know more about the "suggesters" wisdom.
So also the Buddha told especially lay people, in regard of knowing "who is one on he path" or even at destiny, that one can only find out ones wisdom getting into discussions to lrarn more about the ways of thinking and wisdom of a person.

It's through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

Let me try to answer this, speaking as one of the users of this site.
There are many "Stack Exchange" sites (all listed here) of which Buddhism.SE is one.
They all have the same format (they all use the same software) and are question-and-answer sites.
Different sites have different users, of course, though some users use more than one site.
Other sites I've used in the past include Bicycles.SE and StackOverflow, where I can ask a question if I have a question about a bicycle or about software development.
The first thing to note is that when I post a question (for example, a question about a bicycle), I'm not trying to "know the discernment" of the people of who may answer. What I am trying to do is get an on-topic, helpful, usable answer to my question.
I often ask practical questions: questions about practical problems. For example one of the first question I asked was English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon. When that question is answered, I can "evaluate" the answer by trying to make use of the answer. And I evaluate the answer, not the discernment of the user who answers.
Also, I think you don't rely on "trust" to evaluate an answer (instead see e.g. The Four Great References as well as the Kalama sutta).

If instead I were looking for a marriage partner, looking for someone to live with, perhaps looking for a teacher who I could trust, then I suppose it would be important for me to try to judge or assess their discernment (perhaps by discussing things with them) ... but I'm not trying to do that here, on this site.

People who answer questions on this site are not the formal teachers of people who ask.
That fact might affect the way in which you choose to answer questions.
If you are a teacher and your student asks a question, it may be sufficient to say "Yes", or "No", or "Do this", or "Do that", and that's enough: because they trust you. On this site you should probably avoid giving such short answers; and instead, not just answer but explain or justify your answer.
For example many or most of my answers are little more than references to suttas, which I think might be relevant to the OP. Because my answer is mostly a quote from a sutta, I hope that bypasses (avoids) the question of my own discernment: instead the reader can assess the answer, assess the sutta, to see whether they find that helpful.
The policy of this site (as it was decided here) is that references are not required in an answer ... even so they're helpful. Another suggestion is that, generally, answers should be based on references or on personal experience.
By the way this (question-and-answer) policy means that there are some types of questions which cannot be answered on this site, including for example:

Questions which can only be answered by another question
Questions which can only be answered by a discussion
Questions which can only be answered by a fight
Questions which can only be answered by a teacher

Of course, discussion even listened or readed does not help those not very attentive and over a longer periode, but impossible even for a patiently and discerning person to find out if cut off from it.

I think that if you're really interested, read everything that's posted on the site, you may form your own private impressions of various people: you'll see how they answer questions, which questions they answer, what they say on Meta, what comments they post and how they reply to comments.

So in not only providing good transpatrence but also to give most possible access, it would be even better and conuctive to encourage people to discuss.

I think people would be welcome to discuss whatever they want to, in the Chat room.
However it seems that people don't use the Chat room and so there is nobody to chat with there.
If you chat with someone in a chat room then it's possible I won't read whatever is written there (unless somebody complains about what was written). To that extent the chat room is unmoderated, and can be used for any topic (or no topic), including personal conversations.
Another possibility is to chat using the comments under an answer. The comments are moderated, and when you post comments I hope you will abode by these guidelines, especially this:

When should I comment?
You should submit a comment if you want to:

Request clarification from the author;
Leave constructive criticism that guides the author in improving the post

If that kind of discussion-using-comments continues for more than about 10 comments (and doesn't need to be stopped because it has turned into a fight) then moderators or the users themselves will often create a chat room to continue that discussion.

If two seems to fight, let them do so if they wish

No I won't let people "fight".
If people agree to (choose to) "fight" together in a chat room then I won't stop them there, but I won't permit it on the main site:

Because I see it as my responsability (as moderator) to prevent "fights"
Because "fights" are a nuisance for other people to have to read
Because some users may be willing to participate (to read the site and to ask and answer questions) if the site is safe and polite (with no fighting), but not otherwise
Because people can leave the chat room when they think that the conversation there is finished, but I don't want people to have to leave the main site to get away from away from someone who is "fighting"

When I was young I met someone (a pacifist) who told me, "I'm willing to discuss anything with anyone, but as soon as it turns into an argument I walk away".
I don't want users to have to "walk away" if they want to end a fight, and so I try to end any fights on their behalf.
In my opinion a discussion is finished, it has become a fight instead of a conversation and needs to stop, if:

Either of the participants says anything like "stop"
Either of the participants says anything like "you are wrong"
The topic of conversation changes, so that it's discussing the people instead of discussing the OP's question or discuss the answer
Anyone "flags" a comment, to say that the comment is useless or offensive or anything like that
Someone says anything like, "I don't want you to post other comments on my answers in future".

I want to let people answer questions without being attacked. If you (or anyone) comment on someone else's answer you should be polite, as if you were a guest in someone else's home.
If someone posts an unwelcome comment on one of your answers you can simply flag that comment for a moderator to delete it; similarly you may post comments on other people's answers, but politely, and you should stop if they don't consent, and generally let them have the last word.
If in the end you don't like their answer then just down-vote it, and maybe post a better answer yourself.

Atma sees just one thing that is not so good, and that is generally the layout.

That's not something that we (users and moderators) have any control over. That's controlled by Stack Exchange, who let us use their software and their web space but who presumably are not able customize their software further for us.

Otherwise Atma would again encourage to discuss, question, give Sadhu and critic as long and often possible

The usual way to give Sadhu is to up-vote. The site Help includes,

When shouldn't I comment?

Compliments which do not add new information ("+1, great answer!"); instead, up-vote it and pay it forward;

I don't mind if you give Sadhu (like I do mind if people fight), but up-voting is the more idiomatic way to do that on this site.
I hope there are other places where you can have discussions if you want them. The purpose of this site is to be a place where you can ask questions and get answers, without too much discussion, without a lot of chat, and without being expected to tolerate fighting.
May you be well.

Those are no demands, ChrisW. My person is no custumer here or there, those are suggestions. An Atma does not search for justifications of why searching refuge in this or that. You are bound here and inside on get "Betriebsblind". Anyhow, customer care, gratitude and devotion to your parents, SE, is very praise worthy and really great.

This is a Q&A-site where we are looking for expert questions/answers.
That is how the Stack Exchange Network is build. Discussions are not a part of this and it is not encouraged unless it happens in the chat-rooms.
There are plenty of other formats on the internet that allows for discussions.
Stack Exchange is not one of them.

Giving "criminaly" an feedback to your answer very straight forward: it's poor, preoccupied like a soldier, shows that nothing of the question has been considerated and also shows good amout of disrespect, at least in reagard of the Buddha you nourish here. Its an answer of a dictator, an unwise, not thinking about suggestions, Lanka. Its posdible to show being the back and put hands into the bags but not in reagard of results. A dictator or soldier of such is wise when considering such.

@SamanaJohann. This is a core element in all SE's in the SE-Network. Straight Q&A and non-discussion is what characterizes this format. That is not going to change.

There a people doing certain actions and the doer is in charge of it, neither a system nor anybody else. Its good to even hide them from viewing the answer page having just a link "click here to expand". To say that the system makes anybody here cutting of readrding ones own thoughts is a cheep excuse not to think about it and staighten ways, Lanka. Its better to think one single persons and possible benefit for them as to praise and follow systems. Its not right that SE is no-discussion, not at all, having even aditional charts and much more to handle with it, yet, with the effect that...

... discussions grow into the answers and answeres answer other answerse and sometimes not even the questions. It does not incrase the quality of answers in his way and given that there are long therm effects for one posting something not true, it has heavy impact, even will course many much troubles years later. There are many answers being simply like traps or landmines. Once one steps on it, even 50 years later, the transgression is fullfilled.

Its not a proper way to put the hands into the bag and turn away face saying, "I just have to take care that the holes are good an nice covered. Neither do I dig not to I point out the way between them as much as possible. So maybe give you face and creative side a chance, Lanka.

I am busy at the moment (and so cannot answer now) but when I answer I will try to explain how and why and to what extent people try to minimize discussion, and to shape any discussion into question-and-answer format.


text:
Respectful inter-school dialogue
I flagged the answer by Dhammadhatu to the linked question because it contains the phrase "later day corruptions". However, the answer and the offending phrase remain.
Is there any proof of Karma theory & rebirth?
This is a Buddhism site not a Theravadan site, so I fail to see why no action was taken.
Please can a moderator explain the decision in this case, the policy on inter-school dialogue and Dhammadhatu in particular?

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

I appreciate the work you're doing Chris, and I like your commitment to a diversity of views. That said, 'corrupt' isn't an acceptable way to describe the Mahayana or Vajrayana, so the moderation criteria could probably do with an update. In light of the current matter, I suggest adding a section as follows:
Please think very carefully before criticising Buddhist teaching (especially the teaching of a school other than your own). If you do criticise teachings:

make sure your criticism is demanded by the question;
be objective;
explain your reasoning (otherwise your criticism is simply dogmatism);
don't cause offense.

In this case I think it's debatable whether the criticism was necessary, but if it was Dhammdatu could have simply said "the Buddha didn't teach reincarnation" and told us what he considered to be the orthodox canon. That would have made the point objectively, given us adequate justification and not offended anyone except possibly some Mahayana or Vajrayana zealots.

I think that these suggestions go further than saying only "make sure your criticism is demanded" ... I think it says "don't criticize", at all! In other words an answer should say that there are other views, and maybe leave it at that ... without using "disrespectful" phrases.

I included the 'demanded' part because someone with an axe to grind will look for any opportunity to grind it... but the most important thing is to be respectful to other people and other traditions. As Lanka pointed out, Right Speech should be our paramount criterion.

I posted another answer to reply to your comment?

Thank you for asking.
Respectful inter-school dialogue
You probably know already but may I mention again that this isn't entirely a site for "dialogue", it's more for question-and-answer.
Of course there are many pairs of people involved:

The OP and the person who answers
The person who answers, and the reader

But we'd like to minimize controversy ... and even to minimize dialogue, except in Q&A format.
I mention this because I think that minimizing dialogue, minimizing the need for dialogue, minimizing or avoiding the questionable statements in answers, is one way to minimize controversy and "offense".
This site not exactly "inter-school", either. I mean it's meant to be inclusive of all schools, welcoming topics about all schools. It's only "inter-school" to the extent that:

If someone posts a topic with the zen tag, for example, then people without Zen experience can listen (can read other people's answers, probably shouldn't write an answer themselves)
If someone posts a topic without a school-specific tag, then anyone might try to answer from the perspective of any or all schools.

Please can a moderator explain the decision in this case, the policy on inter-school dialogue and Dhammadhatu in particular?
Your question (thank you) prompted me to review and summarize the site policies -- the "policy on inter-school dialogue" can now be found summarized there.
There's no official policy on "Dhammadhatu in particular". The policies tend to prescribe the permitted content of posts, and aren't user-specific.
Unofficially there are some users who are controversial: who post a lot, who seem knowledgeable for one reason or another, who often post helpful content, but whose content is also sometimes somehow abrasive. When the content is questionable then I inspect it and if it breaks a rule then I edit or delete it (and other moderators presumably do the same). If it doesn't break a rule then I don't delete it.
I think we want to permit diverse views, without imposing a moderator-defined orthodoxy.
A few users have been quite vocal about protesting moderation, so I try to avoid moderating except when there's a defined policy ("defined" by having been proposed and upvoted by the community of users) which clearly supports any decision to moderate.
My decision to not moderate in this case was based on the fact that it didn't break any of the criteria I might usually use; for example:

Aghori's question didn't have a school-specific tag -- if it did then any inter-school comments in answers would be off-topic.
Dhammadhatu's answer didn't identify other users -- if he'd written "Lanka's answer is wrong" or "Saptha's answer is stupid", then that would have broken rules against discussion and/or against ad hominem content.
I couldn't think of a polite or less-controversial way to phrase Dhammadhatu's "later day corruptions" opinion.

I see that Lanka has now edited the answer to rephrase it as "original Buddhism (before the later day variations)". I suppose that might be controversial still, but I hope it's less immediately offensive.
When I reviewed the site policies today, to write the new "FAQ index", I found one or two policies that I maybe should or could have applied to Dhammadhatu's answer. They're the policies defined in this meta-answer and this-meta-answer i.e.:

Beware that topics which don't define a school-specific tag are "tricky"
An answer can or should state (only) that other points of view exist, but must not be disrespectful
An answer should include an "explicit mention of the tradition on which the answer is based".

I'd prefer it if people (including Dhammadhatu) were a bit more tactful in the first place, when they answer questions. There are other users who participate without their answers being "flagged", so it's not impossible.

Please say if you think the current policies could be improved in any way.

This is a follow-on from this comment, which says:

I included the 'demanded' part because someone with an axe to grind will look for any opportunity to grind it... but the most important thing is to be respectful to other people and other traditions. As Lanka pointed out, Right Speech should be our paramount criterion.

I'd like to agree but I'm not sure, about Right Speech being our paramount criterion.

The suttas talk about Wrong Views almost as much as they talk abut Right View. Assuming the suttas are examples of Right Speech, does that imply that people are welcome to, and can expect to, criticize (and disrespect) anything they regard as Wrong View?
Part of this explanation of Right Speech includes the quote,

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

Someone might think that "in an answer to a question on this site" would count as "the proper time for saying them" and therefore feel justified to say things they consider to be "factual, true, beneficial" even though those may be "unendearing & disagreeable to others"
Users of this site sometimes talk about "defending dharma", or reference quotes such as,

Monks, even a monk who has long penetrated the Dhamma in this Doctrine and Discipline would do well to refute the wanderers of other persuasions with the Dhamma periodically in just the way Anathapindika the householder has done.

Some users of this site don't consider themselves Buddhist.

Do you think this type of speech, disparaging of other views, might be sometimes appropriate ... but maybe only somewhere else, and maybe not on this site?
There are other parts to the definition of Right Speech, for example,

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

I worry though that the definition of Right Speech is too broad.
You wrote, "I included the 'demanded' part ('make sure your criticism is demanded') because someone with an axe to grind will look for any opportunity to grind it" ... I fear that people self-justify, permit, excuse their own rudeness (perhaps on the pretext that, for example, what they say is true).

So perhaps we need stricter (more restrictive) guidelines than that.
For example one of the Stack Exchange policies includes,

Be nice.

Rudeness and belittling language are not okay. Your tone should match the way you'd talk in person with someone you respect and whom you want to respect you. If you don't have time to say something politely, just leave it for someone who does.

And there's the policy which was suggested and upvoted here:

So, in summary, instead of deleting questions, or asking to rephrase, or to make obligatory survey in the answer, I propose to delete derogatory statements only and allow single commentary to state existence of other point of view, and leave everything else as it is.

So for example a "derogatory statement" might be something like "later corruption", which should be replaced by a phrase which admits the existence of other views without disrespecting them, for example, "later views".
This may imply some censoring. Derogatory statements which might be permitted elsewhere as "free speech" or "personal opinion" or "academic freedom" would be moderated for the sake of, I don't know, "political correctness" or politeness.
It would mean a change away from "Say whatever you want to, as long as you think it's true", and instead, "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all."

I think you're being over-cautious. I would argue, in favour of a blanket ban on offensive speech that:

I (and I assume most others) don't consent to being insulted or seeing my religion insulted;
the Stack Exchange rules prohibit offensive comments;
the exceptions you've quoted from texts apply to the Buddha and senior monks and no one here to my knowledge holds such a position, and furthermore 'unendearing and disagreeable' only means (imho) that the listener doesn't like hearing it, it's not the same (again imho) as 'offensive'.

Can you link to question or answer here, or a provide hypothetical example which you think supports stopping short of a blanket ban?
Human nature can be a difficult thing, and religion can bring out the worst in it unfortunately. But I think that people appreciate clear guidelines, and I honestly think that an outright ban on offensive remarks (which is really just a requirement that people take care to express themselves with a degree of decorum) would be a good thing - or at least worth trying for a while.
I appreciate your concern that censorship is a slippery slope, but I think you and the other moderators, with the support of the wider SE Buddhism community will be able to overcome the challenges as they appear. :)

Yes I think I was overcautious (timid, and/or ignorant about how to edit it) when I didn't moderate the post in question. Now that I've reviewed the FAQs, may I be less so in the future. Lanka did edit it eventually, and I hope it's now acceptable. Please flag any other posts that you may find offensive ... and/or edit them to suggest a specific improvement.

Don't worry, you and the other mods are doing a great job! For my part I will try to remember the minefield you guys have to tread next time I post :)

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Buddhism SE's policy on inter-school communication
I would like to remind all users on Buddhism SE that this site is about Buddhism meaning that all affiliations are welcome.
When commenting on other affiliations than your own please speak lightly, respectfully and take great care to not offend/hurt other users.
For more information on this sites policy on the topic see our Be nice-policy.
More superior than that we have the Buddha's teaching on Right Speech.

Related topic: Respectful inter-school dialogue

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Less goals "maybe equals" more results
I'd like to propose to undelete this answer as I think it's a reasonable, on-topic, answer.
The reason being that there are many teachers that teach meditation without having goals, that having these goals (or "speedy progress") are actually harmful. Even in the context of samadhi itself, some teachers suggest abandoning the desires of attaining samadhi, as these become an obstacle to the actual attainment.

Thank you for the post.
I have undeleted the answer as I think you both make some valid points.
Although I still think that the question(s) should be addressed. The answer does not attempt to answer them.

How effectively fast is it? How is Metta properly cultivated as a meditation? As in how to develop the Vitakka Vicara on metta in meditation?

Its best that the Community decide about the post. I want to also mention that I think the answerer had wholesome intentions when posting the answer/advice regarding progressing too fast.
I myself fully agree that wanting to progress fast in the practice can be one of the greatest obstacles to progress. I did not mention it in my post as OP didn't ask about it though.
With Metta.

Thanks for posting.
Speaking as a user, it seems to me that:

On the one hand, theoretically, it "invalidates the question" and is therefore "not an answer".
On the other hand, in practice, it may well be a correct answer.
I agree it should be undeleted ... there's another policy which says that, generally, "Not an answer" shouldn't be deleted unless/until the community downvotes it.

I delete spam and stuff without waiting for downvotes, but this "answer" isn't completely off-topic and unrelated to the question.

It's undeleted now.


text:
Should duplicate questions be deleted by the asker?
Should duplicate questions be deleted by the asker? It was politely pointed out my question was a duplicate, so I deleted it, then it was I think undeleted, then I edited the question to make it a little different from the duplicate, then it was marked as duplicate.
Not worried, at all, just wondered if deleting was bad practice.

You may (or should) close or delete your question, if you think your question is a duplicate and especially if the other question already has answers, which answer your question to your satisfaction.
Or, if someone else thinks that your question is a duplicate, and if they close your question, but if you think that your question isn't a duplicate, then please comment (or post on Meta) to explain what the difference is between your question and the previous question.
Usually a moderator will close a question if they think it's a duplicate, which has already been answered (and if they close it then there's no need for you to close it). Or if someone is aware of a similar question which isn't an exact duplicate, they'll probably post a comment to say "See also [this other question]" (in which case, again, there's no need for you to close your question).
I think for this specific question (which you're asking about), the moderators were undecided about whether it was an exact duplicate (to be closed) or whether it was merely similar. Not your fault!

By the way, if a question is closed then there's no need to also delete it. I think the theory is that your (duplicate) question may be phrased slightly differently, and someone search might find your question instead of the original question... and your question will contain a link back to the original question.
See also Why are some questions marked as duplicate?

hmm thanks chrisw, good to know that. don't think i can edit the question into something that isn't duplicate, which is annoying for me. i will try again tho

Lanka thought the difference might be "Tibetan Buddhism". If you wanted to ask about Tibetan Buddhism you could make that a question, using the [tag:tibetan-buddhism] tag. Perhaps a question like, "Is the doctrine of "rebirth" the same in Tibetan Buddhism as it is in the Pali canon? Is it properly called 'reincarnation', whereas Theravada seems to prefer to call it 'rebirth'? What about the 'bardo'?"

@user3293056 Or further to this comment you could ask whether any other religion uses the word "reincarnation" to imply a soul. I think that Hinduism perhaps does? But I'm not sure. That might be a question to ask here or on Hinduism.SE (e.g. "Does Hindu doctrine include 'soul', and 'reincarnation' as opposed to just 'rebirth', and is that known to be a difference between Hindu and Buddhist doctrine?")

yes i consirdered asking on hinduism.stackexchange too


text:
Is this site Buddhist?
Is this site Buddhist if its users routinely claim that parts of the Buddhist canon are not authentic?
It happens, but I think that the answer is clear -- no.

If I were to act more annoyed, I might ask who is generating merit, in the place of the grand history of Buddhism

"We are getting aggravated." "Yes, we are." (from The Matrix Reloaded) I looked in the phone book for churches, and there were about 47 different sects of protestantism in my small city. Then there is Catholicism, the Mormons and who knows what-all else. Look at what happens in Islam, with divided sects. Look at what happened immediately after the Buddha left his body, with half the followers wanting a pyre and half a burial! The only way to make a belief system uniform is to narrow it down and down until you are inside Jim Jones's cranium. As soon as you leave certainty, all bets are off.

@nocomprende i'm not gonna argue about it. you can "narrow it down" on a personal level.

@nocomprende surely it matters. surely! we can dismiss this high ranking website as a bunch of stoned lunatics, if we like

For me, narrowing it down personally means Nonduality. Consider the Heart Sutra, or the idea of Tathata. Once you have seen that, no one can ever argue with you again.

@nocomprende sorry but i don't see the relevance to claiming that this or that isn't buddhism. what is it?

@nocomprende "no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue" etc.. buddhism is litered with arguments, not dogma. take some repsonsibility imo

Well, the responsibility is on each person to determine for themselves. That is what is meant by Nonduality, and it is the goal that Buddhism aims at. As the Buddha said, "This cannot be taught." But a path can be. Nagarjuna said, "No truth has been taught by the Buddha at any time." The Buddha said, "Be ye lamps unto yourselves." So, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." To answer your question - this or that isn't Buddhism - Buddhism isn't Buddhism. The old saying is, "you can't win an argument with your wife": if you are arguing, you have already lost.

@nocomprende i'm not so much trying to convine you, you seem quite set in your ways. i would like the site to cut out the flakey and the inane. but, it's the internet.

@nocomprende ok maybe i should apologise. if it's inane, then you have to assume that's obvious, and no-one is about to be tricked into thinking that zen / mahayana / tripitaka / vajrayana / whatever buddhism isn't buddhism. good luck with whatever you do

Personally, I think it's a disservice to wrap this kind of claim with the flavor of certainty while providing but a rough sketch of a justification or no justification at all. I suppose it could mislead readers into thinking that the claim is common knowledge, when it's only someone's personal opinion.
But I have no problem if it's explicit that the claim is the author's personal opinion.

I think you are right.

I think it's about balance; between repeating dogma, and not talking rubbish.
The question is a bit too confrontational (apologies), and the site can be Buddhist despite not getting e.g. te mahayana, as many devout Buddhists have done so.
I agree with the above though, that without citing someone who claims that X isn't Buddhism, it should definitely be couched as opinion.


text:
Are my questions premoderated, why does it take them a few minutes to show up?
Are my questions premoderated, why does it take them a few minutes to show up?
Thanks for any reply :-)

I had noticed this too on other sites - the answer is most likely caching. If you're looking at this page, it's cached for some amount of minutes, but the "newest" tab should be pretty quick. Rest assured there is no pre-moderation feature on SE.

I don't think any are premoderated; not by a human moderator anyway.
If I post a question of my own (on any site), I think I found that maybe it takes a minute or so (not a few minutes) to show on the sort by Active view, but that it appears more quickly on the sort by Newest view?
I'm not sure my observation is correct; but if it is, and if that was implemented on purpose, and if I had to guess why that's so, it would be because a question jumps to the top of the Active view each time it's edited, so they give the author of a question some time (i.e. a delay) in which to edit the new question immediately after it's posted, during which it's not at the top of the Active view.
Editing a question to 'bump' it to the top of the Active queue is seen as poor etiquette (on high-traffic sites) if it's done too frequently -- Purposeful Question Bumping: Abuse or feature?
To get a second opinion I'd recommend you post on https://meta.stackexchange.com except that you might not get a good answer there either ... the closest topic I found there was Newest questions appear with delay which was closed as status-norepro (i.e. Stack Exchange haven't reproduced the bug, don't understand the bug report, and/or think that it doesn't usually happen).


text:
Can I ask a question about personal opinion?
Such as

would you renounce a permanent heaven?

I'm just intrigued, not calling it a cornerstone of Buddhism. I'm not well versed enough in Buddhism, to say.

As currently phrased that seems to me like a "polling question", of a sort that's against the site's policy -- see "polling questions" in the Moderation policies for Questions -- theoretically the answers to that question could be just endless users replying "yes" and/or "no", which wouldn't be very informative.
Also there's something missing in the question as phrased: "would" is a subjunctive which implies an "if", so: "Would you, if ..." -- if what? If it were possible? If it were offered? If you could earn it?
It may be like asking "would you like world peace?", "would you like to be happy?", "would you like to live in deathless world?" ... maybe too theoretical, speculative, not a useful or practical question.
I suppose you might ask instead, "Why don't Buddhists believe in a permanent heaven?", or "Do Buddhists believe in a permanent heaven?", or something like that.

that answers the question, sorry for not already knowing that! cheers


text:
Was my question closed for being too philosophical?
Was my question closed for being philosophical?
No extant questions ask about upaya and impermanence. Are we not allowed to ask "philosophical" questions? If that made sense, even, I have no idea why I'm using the site.
Is 'impermanence' skillful means?

I don't understand why it was closed.
I also don't understand what "too philosophical" means.
If it were open I don't know what a good answer might look like.
And I don't have any firm suggestion for how to improve it.

One suggestion might be to ask more specifically about skillful means, for example,

What is skillful means? When and why was "skillful means" introduced into Buddhist pedagogy? Is all Buddhist teaching an example of skillful means? Are all skillful means half-truths, or benign lies? Can doctrine about "nirvana" be categorized as "skillful means"? How about other doctrine, for example the doctrine of impermanence?

I don't know whether the above would be a good question, or the question that you wanted to ask, but maybe it wouldn't be closed.

Another suggestion might be to give one or more examples of why you think that "impermanence" might be a "skillful means" doctrine -- that might clarify or focus the question and explain why you're asking it. Understand why the question is asked sometimes helps people to answer it.

Another suggestion might be to explain (in the question) how to tell whether an answer is correct. Are you asking for a canonical reference? A dictionary definition? A personal experience of some kind?

I find the comments a bit of a mess and hard to follow. It this meant to be a question about rebirth or something, are you saying "people are eternal so impermanence is a lie" or something like that? Or is that a side-track from talking with Martin?

I think it's reasonable to close a question when both the following are true:

It's not clear what is being asked; so different people might post different answers to different questions (to different interpretations of the question).
It's not clear why it is being asked; the Moderation policies for Questions allows questions that are unclear -- if you've a reason for asking then someone's answer might answer your question even when no-one except the OP is sure about what the question is.

If both of the above are true, then it's an open-ended question with too many correct answers (or no way of telling whether any particular is "correct"), which might be better suited to a discussion site (or chat) than to Q+A.

Another confusing thing about the question is that (according to Wikipedia) upaya is a term used in Mahayana Buddhism, including Tibetan. It might be better to specify more precisely which school of Buddhism you're asking about, perhaps even which author.
Or perhaps you're asking this question because some other Mahayana doctrine (you mentioned "birth and death") which are permanent and not impermanent.

OK thanks for the detailed reply. i'm happy to improve the question, step by step, as you suggested. i don't think it's any less clear than any other question, just because you don't know what an answer would look like. assuming we roughly have the same knowledge, that can just mean it's a good question

@user3293056 I expect you know more about Mahayana doctrine than I do; so if the question implies or expects some knowledge about Mahayana (you mentioned the mahayana parinirvana sutra in chat, for example), then the point of the question is less clear to me than it is to you.

@user3293056 I made a trivial edit for grammar and formatting. Do you want to add something, e.g. from the mahayana parinirvana sutra, which you think implies that something may be permanent, such that the doctrine of impermanence is untrue? Or say that you're assuming that any doctrine being "skillful means" implies that it's partly untrue?

i don't really want to add my own impression, because in fact i think the question is so interesting that it would just make it look loads worse haha. cheers

Yes, it was closed for being both highly philosophical, hypothetical and speculative in nature.
Question is of poor quality with no elaboration on question-body.
I suggest you take a look at our guidelines for asking questions:

What types of questions should I avoid asking?
How do I ask a good question?

Before edit:
Question seems poorly constructed and lacks both context, definition of words (for new comers) and references. I'm not saying references should always be provided but in the case of asking about such a fundamental concept as "Impermanence" and asking whether its "partially-true", question-body should reflect that.
Question seems open-ended (ie. too philosophical, hypothethical) and should be narrowed down.
In its current format and I'm here talking about question-body before the edit,
question lacks all of the above mentioned components.
After edit:
I still think question-quality is too low.
Please provide:

A definition of "ultimately true"
A definition of skillful means - apparently "skillful means" is used in question-body on the main-page, while "Upaya" is used in question-body on Meta. Are you asking about "Upaya", which is from the Mahayana Tradition and therefore looking for answers from this tradition or do you have another definition of skillful means? Clarification is needed.
A definition of what kind of answer you are looking for, e.g. a scholarly or  practical (meditational) answer. This is done to further narrow it down for the potential answerer. Open-ended questions with multiple possible answers, do not belong on a Q&A-site.
References to the source of the material used (actual links so that users do not have to search for them themselves)

Please provide the above mentioned edits and we will look at the question again.
I actually think this is an interesting question but context and definitions are not clearly formulated. Buddhism is huge and vast and for new comers it can be difficult to understand which concepts belong to what tradition or what a particular tradition holds as views on different topics.

that adds nothing to what you've already said. i defined and quoted on upaya, should i do for impermanence too? then my wonderful question will be reopened, right?

there's no mention of philosophy or speculation in the faq, i wish you'd stop citing it for your reasons... neither is it a hypothetical "what if" question. i'm not saying you're always a bad mod, but think you've really dropped the ball here

ok, apologies. i accept that you are being honest, and that philosophical questions about buddhism are off-topic. thanks

@Lanka When you have time, can you be more specific about what is missing from the question-body, and/or suggest how to improve the question if possible?

Answer updated. Have a look and let me know if further clarification is needed.

The question quotes a definition of Upaya now. That reference/definition includes the text "ultimately true". I don't think we can expect/require the OP to fully understand the definition of the doctrine which they're asking about (though it's better if they do). Do you think it can be reopened now, or is it still missing something fundamental?

@ChrisW. Thank you for the edit. I think we should reopen the question based on the current edit.


text:
How long will the site be beta for?
Seems busy here. I'm not sure about quality, seems reasonable, though maybe a bit practical and not enough scholarship.
How long will the site be beta for?

Just for your convenience, here is the stat as of Feb '19

Maybe some advertisements would push this, since other criteria are excellent. We just need to explain why the Q&A format helps learning and practicing Buddhism.
There is also a demonstration of Writing to graduate: Writing.SE clamours for graduation

So in that link they're saying that the distinction between beta and non-beta is becoming blurred (though progress toward that is slow, year-long). The biggest differences (between beta and graduated) would be tweaking the appearance of the site (which they scarcely have time/resources for), and moderator elections (which they might do if necessary even if the site were still in beta).

I guess there aren't enough questions per day to graduate -- see http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/45110/buddhism --  there are currently 4 per day, and SE might prefer 10.
The last I read though, many months ago, was that SE no longer has a "graduate or die" policy for beta sites: i.e. a site that doesn't graduate can stay in beta for as long as it remains useful.

really only 4, that's surprising, cheers. i usually look at trhe bump page, i guess

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Is the disclaimer necessary?
I see that some Answers have a statement at the end to the effect that, "this is a gift and not meant for commercial or personal gain." Since it is not really possible to make money here, and no one is selling or recommending anything, can we dispense with these statements?
If necessary, the person can place such a disclaimer in their profile, yes?

Samana Johann adds that phrase to his posts. I think the reasoning is:

User contributions (i.e. all posts) to Stack Exchange are "licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required"; the text of this license includes:

You are free to ... Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
  for any purpose, even commercially.

In summary, someone could sell a book consisting of posts made to Stack Exchange, and/or Stack Exchange is or would be allowed to operate this as a commercial site.
Samana Johann (and some monks in general) dislike the idea of Dhamma being sold -- in particular, I think that monks are not allowed to sell Dhamma.

I think I've had some extensive discussion on this subject in the past (probably on Meta and probably with an earlier version of his user ID, if you want to look for it, though possibly in a deleted comment thread). I think that it (posting that disclaimer) is unnecessary and useless and a bit annoying, but (as you can see) I allow it of him.

FYI apparently there a concept in France, défendu mais toléré, "forbidden but tolerated". The example I read was of parking your bicycle in the courtyard of an apartment building: doing that is forbidden; but if only one person is doing it, no harm done, it's tolerated; but if everyone starts doing it, well, there's a rule against it, it's forbidden, they can start to enforce the rule.
Similarly this kind of "signature" is forbidden, and signatures or boilerplate should as you say be in the user profile only.

I didn't ask until I saw someone else start to do it also. Then, as you say, the courtyard begins to get cluttered. If it is now a world where our freely given words can be repackaged and sold with no consent, then our only alternative is "not to play", which would be sad. I thought that SE was trying to stop the 'scrapers', sites that copy all the content wholesale and relist it with advertising. Is that not forbidden, and untolerated? For the record, I stopped participating on one SE site when I heard that Chat is permanent and searchable. I think it should disappear after about 30 days.

Yes SE does try to stop scrapers: you can report those sites to SE (who'll report them to Google) if you find them. The main point of the "cc-by-sa (commercial)" license is I think for the StackOverflow site: it's to let anyone [re]use code fragments posted there, in their (probably commercial) software. Also (IANAL but IMO) the license allows SE itself to reuse what we post: to combine it on a page with the posts of others users, to post it on other sites (via the Hot Network Questions list), and to post commercial advertisements: which I think it only ever does, and/or did, on StackOverflow.

My opinion is that SE runs this site pro bono but anyway those are the license terms.

How do they repackage it? I mean you can't just copy  a site's word patterns right? Doesn't some  spider bot dealymabob check for that?

@Lowbrow StackOverflow has a lot of content, which people find via Google. So some sites try to copy SO's content so that Google users will land on those sites instead of SO, and those sites may get ad revenue. I imagine there are many way to copy SO's content, e.g. by scraping (see e.g. here).

Plus they don't want anyone betting on the answers.

So let's hide the answers in the comment section, so nobody that gambles would find them there. It's just  risky enough to work.


text:
Benefit of Applying Emptiness to Answers
I am asking three questions in the same day, if that is excessive then let me know.
I meant to ask: I have replied upon this site, to some answers, to the best of my ability. I realized that clearly, we cannot claim omniscience, and ultimate wisdom: our answers will in some way or other fall short.
Therefore, I wonder whether one might not apply emptiness to the notion of answering one this site, whereby one should provide as much insight as possible, but dividing the answer into parts; in this way, each component of an answer contains an insightful aspect, without deviating into something incorrect.
When an answer is straightforward, then by all means one should answer straightforwardly. But, if someone asks a question unrelated to virtue and not conducive to benefit them, shouldn't we tackle the question by giving insight which could potentially benefit them?
I think, to me, answering a question will always have positive and negative components, and the idea is merely that the person notice from within that question an answer which is satisfactory, or rather, beneficial.
I find from the point of view of emptiness, one cannot establish truly and definitely the beneficial aspects of an answer: one might attempt to create an answer that will help as many as possible, but it is difficult to do so.
Even, I noticed my questions asked out of a desire to know gained a positive feedback, showing that from a perspective of non-self and non-referential intentions, I managed to do something positive despite myself.
All this to say: direct and obvious intention sometimes doesn't mean something clear. Sometimes we help because of indirect causes.
Any thoughts?

I'm not sure I can answer this but I'll try.
I am asking three questions in the same day, if that is excessive then let me know.
I'm not complaining. The quality of questions is maybe a better metric than the quantity:

Is the question "well-received" (e.g. up-voted not down-voted)?
Is it a novel question (not a duplicate of a topic already asked)?
Do you find the answers helpful?

If the answer is "yes" then it's not too many questions.
one should provide as much insight as possible, but dividing the answer into parts
That sounds like what I try to do, I think ... is that is what I'm doing now? Or have I misunderstood what you meant?
Incidentally, when I ask a question (e.g. here or here) I tend to ask multiple questions centred on the same topic: and I'm hoping that an answer may answer any or all of these sub-questions, and/or answer the question in the title.
But, if someone asks a question unrelated to virtue and not conducive to benefit them, shouldn't we tackle the question by giving insight which could potentially benefit them?
Yes and no.
If you can benefit them then so much the better.
However please also consider the topic Answers vs Advice which says that you should answer the question and not just offer advice:

Avoid invalidating the question with answers of the form "That's the wrong question..."

In practice I often don't actually delete (moderate) answers which don't answer the question:

The community has asked moderators to allow (i.e. to not delete) answers, unless or until the answer receives several downvotes from users.
So if you think an answer should be deleted, please downvote it as well as flag it for moderator attention.

But I am especially inclined to moderate (delete) an answer if ...

It's hostile to the OP
It's hostile to a school of Buddhism
It's an "answer" (or non-answer) which you could post to any question (e.g. "You need a teacher").

... so please don't do that at least.
Maybe the ideal solution would be to answer the question and give good advice as well.
answering a question will always have positive and negative components, and the idea is merely that the person notice from within that question an answer which is satisfactory, or rather, beneficial
I don't think I understand what you're saying (i.e. what you mean by "positive and negative components").
But on the topic of "noticing within a question":

If you cut the question into individual words or letters then it's no longer a meaningful question.
Similarly if you don't "analyse" or examine the components of the question at all, then that wouldn't make sense either.
So I think it's sensible to see (and shape your answer to address) useful fragments of the question.

one might attempt to create an answer that will help as many as possible, but it is difficult to do so
I suppose the primary focus is to answer the question, which may help the OP (who asked the question) and any other reader.
Incidentally I recommend Good Subjective, Bad Subjective which recommends that an answer be based on:

Something that happened to you personally
Something you can back up with a reference

Note that references aren't required on this site, but I sometimes find it more helpful when people do post references (unless they're posting answers based on references that I already know).

I haven't tried to answer the last two (or three) paragraphs of your question.
I guess that "asking questions out of a desire to know" is one of the few valid reasons for asking a question. Ideally you shouldn't ask a question just because you think that would help other people: see this FAQ about "seeded questions".


text:
Why do answers, questions, comments, suddenly disappear (and sometimes reappear)?
It might be regardable as meta-question, but just not finding any access to this area here:
It happens that answers, questions, comments, suddenly disappear, mostly at the same time of the day and under similar, seemingly elementary conditions. Generally just to let you know and that, if you wish to possible solve a possible technical problem, or problem in sequences of possibilities for you meta investigations and possible best welfar (no need or wish to solve any of possible lose from my person side, and just because acting right is only posdible when knowing about certain circumstances):

Are there possible elementary problems with the question and answering possibilities?

Sometimes content appears, disappears, and again... but such can be of course also just a "personal", individual perception, kammic bodily, verbal or mental phenomena, not a "collective" frutation of a certain group. Maybe even the deeds of envy or angry gotten hungry ghosts. Who knows? :-) Which would call for the implementing of a sacrify shrine for the placeholders (called owner/lords of water and earth, "protective/defending" spirits with strong upanissaya of places.)
Best success with it, and may it not even have touched you here, or gave/give reasons.
Again, no demands or wishes, but just to let it be known, as a matter of appreciation of ALL your skillful works and efforts here.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

Sabba sankhara anatta. Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because not related to the Buddhist teachings

"I was talking recently to someone who had given a gift to a lay-run meditation center last year. He came back this year to find that it disappeared. When he asked the people at the center about this they said: "Well, that's impermanence (Sabba sankhara anatta)." Which (in this relation, as excuse for bad) is not the Dharma of the Buddha.... "I'm voting to close...", how supprising... Element (Ddhatu). Could it be that this is the elementary problem? Tendencies?

... There is a danger in trying to boil everything down to just a few principles. Like the idea that all the Dharma teachings come down to the three characteristics: "You just have to accept that things are impermanent, stressful and non-self, just let go at that.
The Buddha didn't teach that way. That was a particular teaching to be applied in particular circumstances. And there are much larger frameworks which include a much larger picture, it means he actually taught Dharma and Vinaya. We tend to forget that.
And the Vinaya's not just rules, but protocols, patterns for behaviour.

Thank you. I think that's not a "technical problem" -- it's not a "bug", rather it's a built-in (intended, purposeful) "feature" of the software.

People (any/all users) sometimes delete their own posts (the software allows them to, and they do):

Anyone who posts an answer can delete their own answer (and any comments under that answer) -- moderators will usually (not always) allow users to delete their own answers
Anyone who posts a question can delete their own question, if (and only if) the question hasn't been answered yet by anyone
Any user can delete their own comment[s]

Moderators can delete anything or everything, including other people's questions, answers, and comments).
Moderators will (should) usually post a comment if they delete an answer or a question. That comment will be visible to high-reputation users -- see also Why can we see deleted answers? (but not visible to you because you keep starting new user IDs instead of accumulating reputation).
Moderators usually don't comment if or when they delete a comment; so comments may disappear without notice.

The only person who can delete something (question, answer, or comment) is:

The author (of that question, answer, or comment)
A moderator
[Theoretically a quorum of high-reputation users can delete someone else's down-voted answer but that happens rarely if ever on this site].

So you can assume that, if something disappears, it was deleted by the author or by a moderator.
Occasionally people delete their own answers after you comment on their answers, perhaps because they:

Realise that their answer was wrong
Decide that their answer was unwelcome
Find that easier than (preferable to) trying to reply to the comments.
Want time to edit it privately, before they undelete it later
[or some other personal reason, I don't know]

Content that's deleted isn't really deleted. Deleted answers are "hidden" but are still visible to the the author, to moderators, and to high-reputation users. Deleted answers may be undeleted by the author and/or by moderators (depending on who deleted them), and so they may re-appear.
Deleted comments are visible only to moderators.
If you notice content which you authored being deleted, and if it wasn't you who deleted it, then it must have been deleted by a moderator for some reason:

If it was an answer you'll still see it (probably with a comment from the moderator to say why they deleted it).
If it was a comment, well, it's just gone. Moderators often delete comments (or move comments to chat) because the comments on the site aren't meant to be used for "secondary discussion", not for arguments, etc.

If a moderator does delete a comment of yours, please take the hint and don't repost that same comment again.

Sadhu for the great effort to try to explain, Nyom Chris. Obiviously Chris has much joy in giving information of site and sequences. Mudita. 3 Things: 1. "Anyone who posts an answer can delete their own answer (and any comments under that answer) -- moderators will usually (not always) allow users to delete their own answers", ther seems to be a contradiction. 2. Could it be that not- members can technical not delete their answer/question (or wher would a link for such be found). How many reputation would a non-mod need to act like phantomas? Can "power" be seen? Mod-actors be known?

In regard of improvements ot elementary sequences, the answers possibilities are not used, but merely just like in a help-center answered. So the main "gift", since not a matter of "gone, thats nature" or carelessness, is not addressed here. No reflections, but "just" it IS such and such.

Any user can always easily delete any answer of their own (for example you ought to be able to see a "delete" link at the bottom of all your answers). If a user does delete an answer of their own, moderators will see that deletion and they will usually do/say nothing about it. If a user tries to delete many or all of their past answers, then moderators might see that as "vandalism" and prevent it (e.g. moderators might undelete the answer; and/or delete the user but not the answer, so that the answer remains but no longer associated with the user).

See How does deleting work? What can cause a post to be deleted, and what does that actually mean? What are the criteria for deletion? for further details.

the answers possibilities are not used, merely just like in a help-center answered ... No reflections, but "just" it IS such and such Yes (a lot of my written answers are like that).

Found this (our of protocol-) way to forward possible good if known info's and comments: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MlOSY.jpg Please stop posting Meta-content on the main site. Thanks.

Yes you have to be a logged-in user to post on Meta, with a reputation of at least 5 (see here for details). That means Meta is available to every user who is a member of the site (i.e. who has posted on the main site and received at least one up-vote from another user). I guess restricting it to only logged-in users helps reduce spam or something (e.g. other off-topic posts) on Meta. Do you find it hard to log-in? I notice your user account is "unregistered" ...

"you ought to be able to see a "delete" link at the bottom of all your answers", is that for sure? Nicca: "Yes (a lot of my written answers are like that)." As the next tries... answer. It IS "me, my self and I", unchangeable, real. :-) Don't' reflect! D.O. could be seen, just give sanna-khandha (remember-aggregat) value.

... see e.g. See e.g. https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/68524/what-does-it-mean-when-someones-an-unregistered-user and https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/42267/how-to-register-my-unregistered-account and so on. I think that to "register" a user account, you may need to give an email address or something like that.

"Yes you have to be a logged..." so can Chris Inform @Lanka that (like most), a not favoring his wishes have deeper reasons which are always not like assumed motivated. My person can like often, not fullfil, either technical or ethical, certain wishes and request.

And again, like told in the picture, the links from and back main and meta, or missing on the "new" theme.

Assuming you have an email address, you may be able to register it here: https://openid.stackexchange.com/account/register ... after which you can log-in.

taking to arrange ones properbly easier ways, is not proper, as being member or to sign contracts not really is. Is already "hard" on the edge as it is, if remember older discussions, infos, Nyom Chris. You are no owner here at all, so you properply could not give what is not yours, given to you, personal, knowingly. In all terms one depends on attentivness and hostility of others. Sometimes one stands therefor in the rain, while other sit under a roof and talk theoretical. Thats ok.

Btw. "This question came from our site for people practicing or interested in Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice." Sure? And, if certain people (can) act like mods, the effects will nevertheless fall back on the mods, since it is assumed that they are in charge. Which could be unpleasant, but a cause of not taking, showing distance, aside of not collective acts and their effects.

This page lists the site's moderators.

That means 4000 is equal moderator on action, and people with 5000 are even able to look into privacy of useres... holly, and their act will be 90% count just on offical faces. Well, good conduct helps nevertheless. In regard of wellbeing in the current, one migh suffer if hoping for good estimate, be suspected by fellows to accosiate with certain acts. Well, it should be so. Profit is always earned best by lack of awarness by the consumer.

Considered this a little, meaning to accept being voluntary under control of certain "emements" who are not shameful to ly, steal, kill impose seperations... it's maybe really better to walk on here. There are certain things which should be abounded by avoiding. "... fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding? ... in the sorts of unsuitable seats, wandering to the sorts of unsuitable habitats, and associating with the sorts of bad friends that would make his knowledgeable friends in the holy life suspect him of evil conduct."

Propably certain strong rebukes and approaches have been not on account of the mods in the past... so for all cases where such was unreasonable met, a "pardon" would be proper, but it should be not forgotten, that assosiation, even if can be just assumed, with fools brings pain.

Just found the new placing of the link to meta, for the case you like to inform the community members so that they could find here:

@SamanaJohann Thank you, I didn't realise that was difficult. I think there's also another link to Meta under that question-mark icon on the toolbar (see the answers to How do users navigate to Meta? for further illustrations).


text:
"Is Buddhism for me?"
Recently, this question was posted: Possible Potential Buddhist.
I guess the poster is asking if he/she should take the Buddhist path or not. If so, it seems too personal to me to be useful for the broad public.
Opinions?
PS: perhaps this is also related to Which type of Buddhism is for me?

Then don't answer it! The question Isn't going to hurt you. What good are you doing here? PERSONAL QUESTIONS ARE THE ONLY USEFUL QUESTIONS.

Hi @Lowbrow, I came bf. the community to get opinions about the question referred above. I'm not sure it's clear, but that's also what meta is for, to discuss policy. This inquiry is a follow up to the 7-vote post that shows how other religion S.E. sites regard (very?) "personal advice" questions (policies they also discussed on their own). I invite you to vote on or provide your own answer (e.g. "I think it's on topic") as a more effective means to influence the direction of B.S.E  site. With metta

@Lowbrow I think the meta-question here is because it's technically NOT a question, isn't personal (i.e. doesn't detail the person's situation), and isn't explicitly asking anything about Buddhism either.

The question is literally "iam at a crossroads in life and iam not certain in which direction I should take".
IMO the self-description in the question is, at least superficially, not very informative -- it boxes the compass, from physics to the supernatural -- and neither is the description of the crossroads in question.

I am reluctant to close a question, but for the reasons above I find it hard to think how to write a personalised answer that addresses the specific situation of the OP (i.e. that responds to the question).
Perhaps we'd get some insight (into what question the OP is asking) by asking for a specific question about Buddhism: with a question mark and everything, in the title and in the text.

Or (though I won't try to do this immediately) someone might form an impression of the OP by reading their other question and their other six answers on this site (and/or their other posts on other sites) to guess what aspect of Buddhism may or may not interest them.

Another approach to an answer (with perhaps only slim chance of relevance) might be to dig into the second of the three paragraphs in the OP -- to explain what Buddhism might say about that.


text:
Where to find the meaning of the seasonal 'hats'
I strangely got a hat and tried to find out its 'meaning', profile only says "it is a secret hat". Nonetheless, I carefully adjusted it to my 'head' and think it looks pleasing.
(Nevermind the irony of butterfly wearing a Menorah. Behold, the Iron Butterfly. "Inna gadda da vita, honey, don't cha know that I love you?")

Winter Bash 2017 Hats -- the "Row Of Many Candles" was awarded for any participating in a site during the last day of Hanukkah.

How fortunate that you dream of being a butterfly [1] and not a moth [2].
There are usually topics on the main meta site, discussing the year's "secret hats" [3].
If there's no answer yet, there'll probably be an answer there at the end of this Winter Bash.
It does look good on ya, adroitly placed. It reminds me of a lotus there, as it floats above.
[1] - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zhuangzi
[2] - https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/232050.html
[3] - https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/secret-hats?sort=newest

Thank you! "I have dreamed a dream... But now that dream has gone from me."


text:
Should the site accept non-constructive criticism of individuals or their works?
Is it useful to remove non-constructive criticism of individuals or their works?
Consider someone asks a good question and another responds, but in the course of the response includes non-constructive criticism of an individual or their works.
What is meant by non-constructive criticism? Well, it adds no interesting factual data to the answer. In other words, no one would be the poorer for having missed it.
For instance, in responding to a question about Nagarjuna someone says:

"I don't like Thich Nhat Hanh's interpretation of the Heart Sutra"

With no explanation whatsoever...
All that is learned is that the respondent has some unexplained problem with Thich Nhat Hanh's interpretation of the Heart Sutra. How this information is relevant to the question at hand is similarly unexplained.
This is an illustration of what I mean by non-constructive criticism of an individual or their work. I think this sort of thing should be removed or made into constructive criticism by adding or explaining what the disagreement is and how that relates to the question at hand. The purpose of the site does not seem to be to publicize unexplained opinions, but rather to give factual answers to real questions.
Requiring constructive criticism I think would be a good way to decrease or minimize controversy among proponents of different schools. I would actually like to learn and gain mutual understanding with those of other schools, but I find this kind of non-constructive criticism makes this harder.

With no explanation whatsoever...
It is perhaps not fair to say there was "no explanation whatsoever":

Nirvana and the Buddhahood are of the 5th Statement. The Intellect-mind is able to come as far as the Four-statements (Catuskoti) limitation. To go beyond the Intellect-mind, what should be looked for by all practitioners but the Self-nature as in Ch'an (6th Patriarch Huineng: How so the Self-nature, originally is self-sufficient (何期自性, 本自具足)), or the Tathagatagarbha, or the Alaya... the teachings only available in the Mahayana Canon (but excluding Tibetan Tantric texts). One of the most important Sutras is Prajna-paramita Sutra, which the related is Heart Sutra. I'm afraid Thich Nhat Hanh though a respectable teacher I respected, his interpretation of Heart Sutra as quoted in this post is questionable. It's only max. to the level of a Śrāvaka, not for the Bodhisattva or Buddha, i.e., not of the Prajna-paramita Heart Sutra the ultimate Emptiness.
The OP asked another question on usefulness of Madhyamaka, the key answer is, due to the decline of man's capacity, very rare few able to see directly the Ultimate Reality ...

I assume the OP is reaching some limit of the Intellect-mind's ability to explain; and is saying, though without saying why, that they assess Thich Nhat Hanh's interpretation as being at most on the level of a Śrāvaka.
How this information is relevant to the question at hand is similarly unexplained.
I think the relevance is explained, i.e.:

The question is about Svabhāva, self-nature
That's related to emptiness
The Heart Sutra is about emptiness
Thich Nhat Hanh has tried to "interpret" the Heart Sutra

I think this sort of thing should be removed or made into constructive criticism
I too might wish there were more to the answer, or that I understood it better.
Perhaps that means it was a good answer though, not a bad one?
Not that I want to encourage obscurantist or mystical answers (especially, "You wouldn't be able to understand until you're enlightened, like me"), but still.
You tagged this topic moderation though. IMO there's a limit to how much moderators are able to require high-quality content. The most I can do as moderator is delete content, and I'm reluctant to delete everything you disagree with and/or don't understand!

I think that as a moderator I'm expected to intervene when content is "hostile" or "abusive".

Per this topic moderators were apparently not expected/trusted to be even able to recognise when an answer is off-topic (i.e. they're supposed to wait for the community to downvote first)

If you want someone to clarify something, the right thing to do may be to post a comment, such as, "What did you mean by X?", or, "Is there any better interpretation of Y that you know of?"
Or you can downvote the answer if you think its overall content is "not useful".

Please keep in mind, too, that perhaps we're fortunate that some people are able and willing write answers at all, and that they have limited time, that they're trying to answer the OP's question (not yours), and that there are other constraints (e.g. Chinese versus English language).
Something else you can do, if you don't understand an answer, is maybe post a new question. Ask a new question about the Heart Sutra if you want to, and/or about Thich Nhat Hanh's interpretation of it.
If you do that, though, I'd just ask you to treat it as a new question, and not as an opportunity to perpetuate a hostile argument over several topics  (which, I might sometimes see other people do) ... i.e. don't ask a question of the form, "In [this answer](link), Mishu wrote (whatever it was he wrote). That's wrong, isn't it!?".
Or, if you can, and think that an answer is inadequate, post a better answer to the OP's question.

I was not trying to make this about my dispute with Mishu, but the more general question of what to do with non-constructive criticism. Is it ok if I edit my question and remove reference to Thich Nhat Hanh and give a more generic example? BTW, I have tried to ask for clarification from Mishu to no avail...
Anyway, it seems this example is not applicable for you or doesn't demonstrate what I'm getting. I'm asking in this question for a ruling on whether non-constructive criticism should in principle be accepted.

This isn't a final answer -- it's my explanation of my present view. As moderator if the community and/or other moderator vote to accept your proposal then I'd try to implement it ... I intend this partly as an explanation of why things are as they are at the moment.

I'd like to suggest you don't edit your question. IMO I'm unable to understand any abstract policy suggestion, without some specific example[s] of content which the new policy is intended to govern.

Ok. BTW, it was stated that the reference to Thich Nhat Hanh was included as disagreement about some quote in the post, but I can't find any such quote, but perhaps I am missing it...

I did delete some sentences, which I thought were critical and off-topic and too broad (i.e. aimed at a whole school) -- so it's partly "a matter of degree".

Yes, I know. It is just that the non-constructive criticisms were fed to the implication of the things you deleted. And now by linking to essentially what are hate sites for Tibetan Buddhism in general and HHDL in specific I think Mishu has shown clear motivation: https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2255/254

Downvoted because I don't like this answer at all.


text:
Absurdity in the SO Buddhist community is dangerous
I want everybody to take time to reflect about their voting and their answers especially high voted users.
I want to state since in the beginning that this is not me lamenting about the rules of the site or anyone in particular however I will adress my concern with examples!
It has come to mine attention that some people here misinterpret(not their intention) the teachings and suttras of the buddha and other buddhists like this.
If someone checks the reference link it does not state anything about attaining enlightenment of people who don't care! The question itself has not stated any type of specifications,yet they clearly are in conflict with the doctrine itself! More absurd is the fact that one has two upvotes while the other answer which states the same thing is downvoted.
This is not the only example I have seen multiple examples of people here that like to interpret teaching or sometimes jump to conclusions.
I would ask for everyone to follow certain rules or at least not to reference at all! I would understand someone who shares his own experience but this is getting ridiculous!
This is a community which I care & I don't like it to be transformed into smth where facts are disregarded!
My life has changed from practising meditation in a good way and the wrong view of someone new may not find it useful at all and disregard it as smth not important!

I’ve noticed this too recently. Also noticed there is quite a bit of ego as well for some...

Nothing new here. This site will probably outlast all of us. Meanwhile it is up to the moderators to either keep enabling bad behavior & censoring inappropriate speech or to make it easy for themselves dropping the overdue permanent ban on toxic pseudo-experts.
I think if one was to go by the Sutta then in case where a certain individual is clearly going the wrong way & is annoying then the community ought to be united in removing that one.
I think this community needs to be more active in the meta and discussing things like this openly because this is a rather small community and if people align on matters like this then it shouldn't be difficult to do things to uphold interesting discourse and learn things.
I have previously complained about DD's excerpts, in general i wouldn't trust neither his inference nor presentation to be what he says or thinks it is. He is the type of person to say 'i can neither refute nor understand what you are saying' and keep arguing.

If someone checks the reference link it does not state anything about attaining enlightenment of people who don't care!
The sutta (SN 22.99) wasn't posted as an example of saying something about "not caring".
It was posted to support this sentence of the answer:

As for the end of this birth cycle, it is when the mind stops conceiving "self".

... because that sutta describes being bound (as if chained to a pole) by assuming the aggregates to be "self".
More absurd is the fact that one has two upvotes while the other answer which states the same thing is downvoted.
We've had meta-topics before, about voting -- not much we can do about it (except decide how you yourself will choose to vote).
I would ask for everyone to follow certain rules or at least not to reference at all!
I suppose you misunderstood the purpose of the reference: the reference was meant to be relevant to the connection between "self-view" and "rebirth" (which is a topic that is featured in many of Dhammadhatu's answers).

the question is about caring not self view,and my concern is in general for people to hold responsibility about their answers

Dhammadhatu chose to interpret the question as being about rebirth (and he often posts that "rebirth" means the "re-arising of self-view").

you didn't understand me,I am okay with the second sentence,this is clear but this If a MAN don't even care to try out to attain enlightenment then he is not a prisoner I can't explain

I see, so it's not the sutta that's out of place (it supports the second sentence) -- it's the first sentence that's out of place.

FWIW that first sentence reminds me of this answer, e.g. "If someone really has no problems, that's great, they are Enlightened!"

Chris again,he is a British author,I can't say anything about him cause I don't know him nor his relation to Buddhism but I too had these kind of thoughts:no stress no problem,but that is temporary once I gained a glimpse on true emptiness everything changed.Its different when you experience things and when you read them.That sentence changes the hole answer

What did you think of Andrei's answer? Can you write an answer to the OP's question, that's better than the answer which you find absurd?

@ChrisW I think what Eminem found absurd is that my answer was downvoted even though it was essentially referring to the same two ideas.

I couldn't agree more with InnerFire. Misinterpretations of the teachings are dangerous and are abundant (not just in this community).
On the other hand: everyone is reacting according to their own understanding. There is not other way, that's the way it is.
It would be better if everyone is humble enough to clearly state that what they are writing is their own interpretation of the texts, the situation, the whatever.
It would be better if readers realise that what they are reading, what others are writing is always nothing more than an interpretation.
But for this to happen, certain understanding is necessary. One has to realise the dangers of misunderstandings and the shortcomings of communication.
Like ChrisW I have no idea how to help with this.
Maybe introduce a mandatory tag like 'my interpretation' or a mandatory note like 'Don't forget, this is just my interpretation'?
Of course, that means that said tag and/or note would be in basically every comment and answer.
But it doesn't necessarily mean it's bad to be reminded over and over again that this is just what it is: some unenlightened being's interpretation.

thanks,overall this doesn't have a real answer this is more a reflection,that everybody has to make. P.s in asnwer you cant add tags but the idea is good

@InnerFire I don't know how it all works technically. Is it possible to, I don't know, flag an answer or comment (or similar technique) and with that show  a bit of text like "Personal interpretation of the text. Remember that interpretations can be wrong." Or as reminder on the top of weekly mails. I don't know, just thinking. ;)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What are the different colours?
Sometimes the numbers are green (guess that means that there is at least one answer to a question). Sometimes the background of the number is also green. Sometimes the background of the entire field of a question (plus the stats) is yellow.
What the heck do all those colours mean? I checked the help, but couldn't find an explanation. Can someone give me some pointers, pls.?

See these topics:

Why do some questions in question lists have a yellow background?
What do the colors on Stack Overflow mean?

I found these by searching the meta.stackexchange.com site.
In summary:

Yellow background -- the topic has one of your "favourite tags"
Green number -- the topic has at least one answer
Green background -- the topic has an accepted answer


text:
Should we have a new Buddhism stack favicon?
Can we have a nice favicon for our stack instead of BU, like the Christianity or Hinduism stack... I propose the dhamma wheel as a favicon.

This comment suggests they may want to see an upvoted suggestion before they act, so I made this a 'featured' topic ... if you agree with the suggestion, please upvote this question.

Yes I meant others: see Voting is different on meta, "Unlike normal Stack Exchange sites, Meta invites the community to discuss, debate and propose changes to the way the community itself behaves, as well as how the software itself works. On posts tagged [meta-tag:feature-request], voting indicates agreement or disagreement with the proposed change rather than just the quality or usefulness of the post itself."

@ChrisW does this not receive further enthusiasm? maybe people not see the meta. Can we make this as stack question?

It is a meta-topic, i.e. a question about the site; I try to keep to the rules about what and where to post, sort of regardless of my personal preferences. Let's let this here another few weeks: maybe it will become a bit more visible on the main site, when the other "Featured on Meta" topics age off the top of the list.

I have upvoted. Let's hope others do so too.

(visitor comment): Just for food for possible good thought: it is one thing to take such what owned by others and another to sacrifice own.
Aside of this, Sadhu & mudita if the merirs have made toward the Tripple gems.

Meaning "should WE have..." could be terrible unskilful at first place...

Here are some designs for evaluation and comments by the moderators and the community. They are based on "Unicode Symbol: ☸ (U+2638: Wheel Of Dharma)".
I post them here as square PNG images for ICO conversion using this website for example, or GIMP.
Here's the SE dialog box versions (outside the dialog box, it's transparent):
 for Buddhism.SE
 for Buddhism.Meta.SE
Here's how they may look like next to the titles when you click on the top right Stack Exchange menu bar icon:

Here are the rounded box versions (outside the rounded box, it's transparent):
 for Buddhism.SE
 for Buddhism.Meta.SE
Here's how they may look like next to the titles when you click on the top right Stack Exchange menu bar icon:

Here are the standalone versions (the rest transparent) - I like this one the best:
 for Buddhism.SE
 for Buddhism.Meta.SE
Here's how they may look like next to the titles when you click on the top right Stack Exchange menu bar icon:

That looks  incredie!!!

Now altogether, there are 3 editions.

I see it has been implemented.

How can we change the favicon of SE site in Beta? suggests that yes, this may be possible!
I think it's a good idea -- so I upvoted your question, and I invite other people to upvote it too.
A favicon is a 32x32 icon. Here's the icon from Hinduism.SE:

That's not too small for a recognizable Dharmachakra, for example:

I made the above image, by:

Copying "Unicode Symbol: ☸ (U+2638: Wheel Of Dharma)" from Dharmachakra -- Symbol
Pasting it (using a suitable font size like 22 or 26, and a default font family like Consolas).

Or perhaps (unless there's a reason to stay with blue) an appropriate color would be orange (or 'saffron') e.g. as suggested here and here.
Let's see whether SE developers agree to implement it. The above-linked answer says,

The correct way to do this is to create a meta post (on Hinduism Meta, not the main meta) with the tag feature-request. Stack Exchange employees monitor that tag across all meta sites in the network. You should get an answer from them in due course, though it may take six to eight weeks before you get an answer, and then another arbitrary amount of time before anything is actually done.

P.S.: Different Stack Exchange sites have the same logo says it's important (for usability) that sites have dissimilar favicons.
The current "Bu" icon is similar to "B", "BH", "BI", "BC", and "BG" icons used by other sites.

Keep hope for saffron! Craft CMS is a Stack Exchange beta site with a non-blue favicon.

Yes please. I like the dhamma wheel as a favicon. "Unicode Symbol: ☸ (U+2638: Wheel Of Dharma) Simple and reproducible. (Y)

Please upvote the question and ChrisW's answer


text:
Is it just the best thing to not choose the answer?
I am having a feeling that if I choose an answer that may makr other people who have answered feel bad.
Also some answers are really close, it is hardly possible to choose without involving subjective feelings and other erronous human logic.
Afterall those asking questions here are not endowed with capacity of objective evaluation of precise logic
In relation with the question asked so errors are to be expected.
The moderators @ChrisW and @Andrei should answer me as they are here with highest reputation.
Also @ruben2020, you answered my question about the Sigdolvada sutra which was the more right answer but I choose santas answer because he bought the rihnocerous first.
So did you feel bad?
THIS IS A QUESTION RELEVANT TO META AS IT IS ABOUT HOW TO ACT ON THE STACK EXCHANGE WEBSITE.

The official answers are here:

What should I do when someone answers my question?

Choose one answer that you believe is the best solution to your problem.

What does it mean when an answer is "accepted"?

How does accepting an answer work?

One of them says,

Please do not add a comment on your question or on an answer to say "Thank you". Comments are meant for requesting clarification, leaving constructive criticism, or adding relevant but minor additional information – not for socializing. If you want to say "thank you," vote on or accept that person's answer, or simply pay it forward by providing a great answer to someone else's question.

... but comments saying "thank you" is tolerated on this site ... allowed as a politeness or a kindness (and not deleted by a moderator) ... especially if the comment says more than only "thank you" ... though it's true that voting and "paying forward" are also appreciated.
I noticed you thanked ruben2020 for example, I thought that was fine.

If you want to (beyond "accepting" an answer) reward an answer with extra "reputation" and attention, you can do that by awarding a "bounty" -- What is a bounty? How can I start one? -- but doing that isn't usual (isn't expected) on this site.

I think there are three benefits to accepting an answer:

A hint to other users that your question was answered and your problem is (now already)  solved, and that you don't need any more more answers
A hint to future readers with the same question, that this answer "worked for you" and may be an answer for them too, so read it carefully
A statement that at least one answer was helpful or acceptable, complete -- so everyone can be happy. Conversely if you don't accept any answer that suggests that none of the answers solved your problem.


text:
Questions regarding mental health
I'd appreciate your thoughts on the answers in certain threads regarding mental health, where a presumed illness of the person asking sometimes is being assessed, diagnosed, and suggested a specific buddhist practice with assumed good effects on health.
I believe the answers come from a will to help. However, i also believe that it's not exclusively a buddhist topic. I suspect this is not a new subject, but i am curious to see what your take is on this?
Coming from the clinical world, i believe there are good reasons for being cautious, for the sake of safety and health.
I would have responded directly in the topic at hand, but my reputation score prevents me from doing it.

Thanks for asking.
What do you recommend: that the question be closed? Or modified? Or answered in a certain way?
Given your reputation you could post an answer of your own, only you couldn't comment on an existing answer.
Just as it happened I have some experience with psychosis, more 2nd-hand than 1st- ... I imagine I know some of the reasons for caution.
I guess I allowed (didn't close) the question, partly because:

This site is more liberal than most other sites, about what questions are permitted
I'm hoping perhaps naively that users who reply will be cautious and do no harm
"Talk to a doctor" is cautious but not the be-all and end-all of life -- the doctors I've met know medications, and something of the difficulties patients have, and about society, but ...
The OP has obviously talked to a doctor already (and the symptoms if any appear to be intermittent, e.g. the question is lucid)
I've read here that Buddhism (to some extent) attracts people with a mental illness, and I hope that experienced practitioners might have met this before and know how to answer to this question.

I guess another reason is that I'm conscious that a diagnosis can be a stigma, which causes other people to act weird and to exclude you from (their) society, e.g., "we can't talk about that... we can't talk with you... go somewhere else ..." -- and "coming from a will to help", as you said, I don't want to respond like that e.g. by forbidding the topic, nor e.g. the OP's access to Q+A here.

Thanks for your input. I'm not sure the alternatives is for me alone to recommend, i brought it up primarily to hear others thoughts. But since you ask, i think it's a two sided thing: 1. There will probably always be an overlap between clinical health topics and buddhist topics, and i prefer an accepting attitude towards questions about it. I am more interested in the consequences of the answers provided. 2. Some of the specific concepts brought up makes me uncertain whether buddhism adress them at all, as they are modern concepts in a sense.

Lastly, i feel hesitant to pinpoint a specific post, but rather look at the topic in a general sense.


text:
Should moderators close questions that don't use quotations?
I am outraged that this question was immediately closed
Are there any attempts to prove the eternal blissful etc. self?
The decision is obviously merely ideologically motivated, and stackexchange is no place for any such thing

Perhaps it was a misunderstanding. Lanka closed it with the comment,

"The mahaparinirvana sutra seems to claim that there is an eternal blissful and pure self"

Such a claim needs precise elaboration, references and quotes to back that up.

There are two sutras (or suttas) with that title, and the one in the Pali canon -- the Mahāparinibbānasutta (DN 16)  -- doesn't say ("there is a self").

It is useful generally though, when you ask a question about a text, if you'd reference and quote from that text.
Some questions involve a misunderstanding, or a difficulty in the translation -- a quote helps people be sure of what you're asking about.

By the way I didn't know how to answer the actual question, i.e. ...

"Did any Buddhist philosophers try to prove that nirvana is a self, or that a self exists?"

I don't know how a philosopher can prove anything, let alone that!
I know more-or-less how Mathematicians prove things; and Physicists ...
I see that existing answers don't seem to try to answer the question as-asked but instead try to explain what the sutta means or why the author might have written it.
Anyway the question was reopened after you added quotes. I hope that wasn't too difficult.
Also Lanka wrote in a comment exactly what he wanted you to do, i.e. "add precise elaboration, references and quotes to back that up", so it's not as if the question was closed with no way for you to get it reopened.

Thank you for asking it, by the way.